Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Correction: Does it fit?—Trainability of affordance judgments in young and older adults

  • Lisa Finkel,
  • Simone Engler,
  • Jennifer Randerath

The calculation of the effect sizes in Study 2 is incorrect. The denominator N should reflect the number of observations (number of participants * number of measures) and not sample size, as previously used in the analysis.

In the Study 2 results subsection of Study 2, there is an error in the last sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: Neither young nor older adults improved solely due to repeated task execution when comparing initial performance (perceptual sensitivity, judgment tendency) in the experimental session of Study 1 with pre-training performance in the first session of Study 2 (young: Z ≤ -0.40, p ≥ .329, r ≥ .063; older adults: Z ≤ 0.0, p ≥ .218, r ≥ .0).

In the Study 2 results subsection of Study 2, there is an error in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph. The correct sentence is: Significant training effects were found with effect sizes ≥ .3 ([53]; see Table 2).

In Table 2, the column with reported effect size values are incorrect. Please see the correct Table 2 here.

thumbnail
Table 2. Descriptive data for young and older adults as well as post-hoc analyses comparing pre-training performance with post-training as well as follow-up performance (Wilcoxon-Tests, only listed for variables with a significant effect of session indicated by Friedman.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215438.t001

Reference

  1. 1. Finkel L, Engler S, Randerath J (2019) Does it fit?–Trainability of affordance judgments in young and older adults. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0212709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212709 pmid:30817755